FILTRIX.net

save_paper_strategy

Save a paper strategy draft: new without strategy_id, else edit yours. source_monitor_id takes the filters from one of your scanner windows. Check the spec with validate_paper_strategy first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "spec": "<spec>"
    },
    "name": "save_paper_strategy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`spec`	Yes	Strategy spec in the shape described by get_paper_catalog (filters, entry, stop, sizing, session and the other blocks).
`strategy_id`	No	Strategy of yours to edit (list_paper_records kind='strategies'); omit to create a new one.
`draft_version`	No	The strategy's draft_version from get_paper_account; refused if the draft changed since. Fetched for you when omitted.
`account_version`	No	Paper account version from get_paper_account; the command is refused if the account changed since. Fetched for you when omitted.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional key that makes a retry safe: the same key replays the first answer instead of acting twice. Derived from the other arguments when omitted.
`source_monitor_id`	No	Take the filters from this scanner window of yours (from list_scanner_monitors).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful workflow context (validate first, draft-vs-edit semantics, borrowing filters from a scanner window). It does not say what an edit overwrites, or that version mismatches cause a refusal — those details live only in the parameter schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the create-vs-edit rule, then a parameter hint, then the prerequisite. No filler. The phrasing 'else edit yours' is slightly compressed but still readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter mutation with a nested spec object and an output schema, the description supplies the essential framing: what is saved, how create vs edit is chosen, and the mandatory validation step. The remaining gaps (exact spec shape, version-refusal behavior) are covered by the schema and get_paper_catalog reference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents spec, strategy_id, draft_version, account_version, idempotency_key and source_monitor_id in detail. The description restates the create/edit meaning of strategy_id and the scanner-window meaning of source_monitor_id without adding syntax, constraints, or examples beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Save a paper strategy draft') and splits the two modes clearly: creation when strategy_id is absent, edit otherwise. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as start_paper_strategy or archive_paper_strategy, relying on the word 'draft' to imply persistence-without-running.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Check the spec with validate_paper_strategy first') and a selection rule for strategy_id (omit to create, supply to edit). Also explains when to use source_monitor_id. Missing an explicit statement that this does not start the strategy — that would require inference from the sibling start_paper_strategy.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All FILTRIX.net tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?